Knee Jerks

(What follows are some musings on the consequences of immediate emotional responses)

When I was in Comprehensive school, one of the more enthusiastic teachers in the maths department attempted to encourage more enthusiasm for his subject by putting up a poster in his classroom window saying ‘MATHS IS FUN!’ A decent attempt, but lacked any supporting evidence (and before any mathematicians read this and start raving, this was no-doubt the fault of the curriculum)

The English department in the building opposite, seemingly under the impression that pupils had some say in which lessons they attended (which, in fairness, usually was the case, but due to the rampant truancy problem rather than any official policy), were clearly offended by this. They retaliated by putting up a poster of their own, simply saying ‘ENGLISH IS FUNNER!’ This tells you everything you need to know about my school.

This was a good example of acting on a knee-jerk reaction and looking like an utter tit as a result. So I did learn something, which was appropriate as it was a school

Knee-jerk reactions are very common, more so than ever these days, what with the ever-increasing options available to express your opinion, e.g. pointless long-winded blogs.

A lot of news these days seems to be centred around scandal-provoking non-stories that exist purely to exploit and perpetuate knee-jerk reactions, e.g. The Koran-burning plans of the Florida maniac who usually has the audience-pulling power of an accordion-playing busker on a wet Tuesday morning, or the plans to build a mosque on a ground zero that exists in a dimension accessible only via right-wing pundits, or the fact that two overpaid performers were a bit cheeky to an old famous man who wasn’t listening at the time, in fact anything involving the words ‘Muslims’, ‘Cancer’ or ‘Immigrants’ seems to be a decent provoker of emotional responses.

Provoking a strong knee-jerk response in someone will potentially entice them to find out exactly what it is they’re reacting to, presumably so they can work out just how outraged they need to be and so are better equipped to ration their outrage for day-to-day occurrences, like being given the wrong change when buying milk, being splashed by a car driving through a puddle or witnessing a different coloured person living a normal life when yours isn’t as ideal as they’d like. In order to find out more about the knee-jerk inducing thing, they will hopefully purchase the item that tells them about what it is. Hence, as far as the media is concerned, this is a lucrative strategy.

I’m used to knee jerk reactions, doing what I do. When people hear that I’m a neuroscientist, they often assume (correctly) that the field involves animal research, so I am therefore morally inferior to a typical torturer or murder (I’ve genuinely been told that). When people hear that I do comedy, the knee-jerk reaction is ‘you'd better not talk about me on stage!’ My knee jerk response in this situation would usually be ‘I won’t, you’re predictable and boring’. But I don’t say that, because when people have their knee-jerk reactions criticised, they risk becoming rather unpredictable.

Every comedian has to deal with knee-jerk reactions on a constant basis, as an audience member could shout out or heckle at any moment if you say something they take exception to. It could be just that it’s not as funny as they would like, or you could mention a sensitive subject which they feel shouldn’t be joked about, no matter that you mention it in order to say something they totally agree with; the knee jerk reaction responds to words and phrases and basic stimuli, application of rationalisation would kill it.

I have been on stage and mentioned that ‘I met a gay man recently’, which I had done, and this fact was relevant to the joke. Before I got to complete it though, a woman stood up and declared that I was a homophobe. This annoyed me, because I’m not. When I met the gay man in question, I was able to resist the urge to lynch him from the nearest lamppost. Conversely, telling the same story in a pub to my friends, the same phrase ‘I met a gay man recently’ provoked a similar knee-jerk but polar-opposite reaction in a complete stranger on a nearby table, who pointed out that it was only incredibly good fortune that I wasn't sodomised in the street. Charming chap.

I bring it up because I've been getting a lot more traffic here lately, possibly because science-themed blogs which feature confusing sentence structure and half-assed attempts at pith humour are currently fashionable? Whatever the reason, it's appreciated, so thanks for that? But it's been especially interesting to see how some of my more popular posts such as the homeopath job application or guide to skeptic dickery have been getting angry responses. See for yourself, it's quite entertaining.

I'm guessing I got a lot of knee-jerk reactions. I've had people telling me that I'm useless, stupid and wasting time. This from the people who felt it worth commenting on or emailing the author of a purposeless blog? I've been linked to from conspiracy theory and pseudoscience websites, and God only knows why. They clearly haven't read or understood my blatherings, they must just see some words they like and make knee-jerk assumptions that I agree with them. But in general, people who have certain viewpoints or beliefs have seen what I have written and decided it's unacceptable, and felt compelled to point this out.

I still fail to see how me writing down the pointless musings that dribble from my cortex and essentially kicking them out into the online void can be seen as something so upsetting. It strikes me as the equivalent of scrawling a rude word on a scrap of toilet paper and flinging it into the sea; maybe it is offensive if you happen to find it, but why the hell would you take it so personally? But maybe it's understandable. Nobody likes having their beliefs or opinions 'publically' mocked, it's basically an indirect way of being called an idiot, and nobody enjoys that. So they feel compelled to respond.

But once people have stated their grievance/argument in public, any attempt to point out why it's wrong (assuming it is) is just another method of calling them an idiot, which will invariably cause further anger and cause them to rigidly stick to their original (wrong) opinion in order to save face and salvage their pride. Further criticisms reinforce this behaviour, and the cycle may never end.

You can't stop people from having knee-jerk reactions, but you can stop yourself from acting on them, and that may limit their propagation

Although, I say it's inadvisable to act on a knee-jerk reaction, but last night I went to the pub and a guy came in who had clearly modelled himself on Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Wolverine. Hair, sideburns, clothing, he may even have had a fictional metal grafted onto his bones as far as I know. My knee jerk reaction was to get a photograph, but decided that may prove offensive and upsetting if I was caught. By the time I was drunk enough to think it actually would be worth it, he'd left.

I shall regret this always.

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

A reply! "Dear Science, from Astrology" (No. 3a)

Believe it or not, someone wrote a rather extensive reply to my original letter to Astrology.

Although not adopting the anthropomorphic personification viewpoint, it's still an exhaustive reply as to why Astrology is not just equal to but BETTER than Astronomy and science in General. The main basis for his claim seems to be-

1. Astrology is very old
2. It deals with the world beyond physics.

So yeah, not exactly subscribing to the rational viewpoint, but gives you a gist of what to expect.

A particular highlight is

"Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really"

Not really much that can be done with that.

Anyway, enjoy! (Also, latest letter is to advertising. Please feel free to keep the questions, suggestions and feedback coming. Like most scientists, I am dreadfully insecure)

"Hello. I'm ******. I think in old times some people have had knowledge
about the signs of the sky, like the people in India in the Indus valley
culture. They have had knowledge about the two invisible Moon nodes,
which they called Rahu and Ketu. That shows that they must have done
astronomy work. But I don't think, that this stuff is an object of
Neuroscience.



Astronomers? Yes, people called that a sect, they have separated
themselves from Astrology. Now they have nothing but formulas.



All night it is dark; I do not knew what people think about eclipses.



Well, I do not see any cause on the movement of the planets or the Moon.
It is said: "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause)
and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence
of the first." But to my knowledge no one ever have shown, that the
movement per example of the Moon is caused.



Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a
good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is
used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really. As one can
recognize, the colour of the sky is not real outside, it is, as you may
know a reality in a living consciousness.


If one accept it as true, what seems to be real, but isn't real, he
maybe is on the level of science. This as an big impact, because objects
of time, space, logic, music, harmony, algebra, brightness or colour
can be defined as evident, but not ever observed by the methods of
physics. And if this is to be recognized as true, it makes no different
whether one accept the nature of logic or the nature of a language like
French as true.



Well that are a lot of points you have come up with from your own
individual personal experience, but mostly all is not stuff of science,
but rumour.



I will try to pick your points up.



There are moving objects on the sky (and suns which do not move) like
the planets of our sun system. Relevant for the astrology are only the
moving objects and our sun. The sun is not really relevant, it is the
moving and rotating earth on their way around the sun. Because all
objects have a mass, a moving like an oscillation of a planet with a
frequency is because of the Planck constant an energy [eV] and because
this holds for all interacting movements like the rotation of the earth
surface with peoples, one can be understand, that it makes a different,
whether a body is placed in the east or in the west. Science people know
this effect as Doppler Effect. Because evidence is only to be
recognized, but not to show, like physical forces, and this is accepted
in the logic, in the music, and all other forms of evidence like algebra
or geometry, it is also possible to recognize the core of the language
of astro_logy like other languages. And of course it is no valid
argument, that a logic of a language like French has no evidence,
because it cannot be proved by the methods of physics; only he, who has
learned the language of French or astrology can speak valid scientific
arguments.



Predictions. If you know the astronomical algorithm for the
Earth/Sun/Moon system, you can predict a planetary constellation or an
eclipse of the Sun or the Moon. That is simple, because J. Kepler has
found out the relations of the undisturbed timeless motion.



In the core, astrology do not deals really with predictions of events,
but with the evidence of geometrical patterns (like music), which was
learned from the cycles of the moving objects. These patterns are
connected with the occurrence of a special mentality of born peoples,
which can be learned as evident. It seems like a mirror, that the
planetary pattern mirrors the scope of the mentality and fate of a born
individual, like the identity of the DNA can lead to loads that person
have like the mother or the father. This is not a business of belief,
it is a business of science in that one study evidence relations beyond
the science of physics as the science of natural forces.



As mentioned above, objects of other sun systems as our are not relevant
for the astrology. But if you speak on the delay of light from far
distances, as it is evident also for the force of gravitation that
should rule the planets, one can see, that Mr. Keplers accepted formula
for the undisturbed motion includes not any time delay from
gravitational interaction, and this holds also for objects like Quaoar,
in a distance of 6 light hours one way. With other words this means,
that there is no causality of time or space. Once again this moves a
phenomenon from the interacting physics to beyond the nature of physics
in that area, which is called metaphysics and which is taboo for the
sect of astronomers.


Science. The discussion what science is, is not a scientific discussion,
but a political discussion or a belief war. Like truth no one can
define, no one can define science, because it is not to be shown, but
only to be recognized.



Theories. Your understanding of scientific work is based on your belief
system called 'science' and believes that there are must be theories
first. But this is only your own belief. Nature or the order of nature
exist well without theories, like you can find out the relations of
tunes of a string by dividing the string into other lengths. Like
Pythagoras has taken that, what is, without any theory, and J. Kepler
has taken that up again and have added the relations of integer ratio
numbers by dividing the 2 Pi circle of the ecliptic with its bodies in
harmonic angle distances, which are used as language of the sky since
the old days in India to learn and recognize the own self, there is no
need for a theory. Theories are connected to functions, and functions
are connected with cause and effect. That what is, is no function.



Claims. I think a discussion on claims is not a scientific discussion.
It is a war. I think there is an agreement possible on that, what is
and/or on that what is to be recognized as true. And if this is true,
there is never anything that is in the same time true and untrue. This
means that there is only one nature which is without contradiction.
There are no two truthes posible.



Layman. If one is an expert in Neuroscience, he is not necessary an
expert in Geology or an expert in Sanskrit or astronomy. The rules are
that he, who would discuss competent on a discipline, he must study the
discipline first. This holds for every discipline in science. There are
also rules, that he, who is a laymen to a discipline, hardly can ask
questions with the reason only to fight a belief war, whether temporary
disciplines on universities are superior to the things down in the county.



There is a big phantom power with comedians like you, because in real
there is nothing, that any science is called doing can show, except
physical forces. But beyond, this only finger touching world of truth
called physics there is claimed time, space, truth vs untruth as
essential evidence, but no one of this educated peoples ever have given
a proof for this 'objects'.


Philosophy. I think it is sensible to show the own experience instead of
make suggestions as layman in another discipline. But if this is the
purpose of a layman, I think it is senseless to discuss with on the
level of science. Because there is only one nature with living people,
who knows nothing where they come from or why they live here a fate,
born with AIDS or born to die as child.


Astrology is a tool that helps people to understand the world beyond
physics as this the Chaldeans coming from India 4000 years ago to
Babylon have lived for, as told by Diodor. The sect of astronomers have
nothing; no philosophy about the own consciousness. Empty they come in
this word and empty they leave this world"

That's us told!

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

Easy Measly Lemon Squeezy

Measles on the rise, as we all predicted

I say 'we all', by which I meant anyone even the slightest bit informed about how medicine and vaccinations works. And I don't mean trained doctors and scientists, I mean anyone who's ever had a vaccination explained to them when they were old enough to form memories, which in this country should be anyone over the age of 3. But that's one of the most fascinating things about modern society, in that there's no limit to the idiotic things people will believe just because it corresponds to their gut instinct or prejudice (this is less of a blog, more a therapeutic rant for me, by the way).

The measles rise is undeniably due to the MMR scare a decade ago which still hasn't gone away really. The original claim, made on the basis of very little evidence by a doctor who was on the payroll of an anti-vaccination lobbying group, was that there was potentially a link between the MMR jab and the incidence of autism in children.

Already, there was something about this which bugged me (I was 16 at the time, so not exactly as well informed as I am now, and I'm not thoroughly informed now so this, as always, may be wrong). Autism is a very poorly understood disease, nobody really knows (or they didn't know then) what causes it, what the epidemiology is and what to do about it. So, if I was a doctor who wanted to make some spurious but hard-to-disprove link between the MMR jab and some scary illness, Autism is exactly what I'd choose. It's also worth noting that, although I'm not a virologist or expert in infectious diseases, I'm not really familiar with a mechanism by which a weakened version of a very common virus (or three) can cause hitherto unknown cognitive development impairments.

Logically, if it's the vaccine which causes autism, and a vaccine is just a weakened form of a virus with the purpose of giving your immune system a safe period to develop antibodies to prevent future infections, then surely the stronger form of the virus will be even more effective at causing autism? I had mumps as a child (it was unpleasant) and as far as I know, I don't have autism. I think I got measles too, same applies. I doubt I had Rubella, I was always led to believe that's a girl's disease. Not being sexist, just thinking back to my primary school years where such sweeping claims were common.

As Ben Goldacre points out in his regular column, on the back of a recent debacle over some mad journo squawking about the 'dangers' of MMR, the media's irresponsible behaviour with scaremongering and 'presenting a balanced argument' has potentially condemned many hundreds of children to death (he didn't say that, this is my perspective). This story has been blogged about to death, but what are the root causes of these wild opinions people have?

Journalists, as has been pointed out so many times, don't understand science as well as they should when you consider their tendency to comment on stories about it (LHC, anyone?). They need to give a 'balanced' argument, which, as Goldacre points out, takes in the the two extreme viewpoints, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. This, in many cases, is bollocks. There are still some people who believe that the Earth is flat, most people believe it's round, but we haven't had a debate on TV, where the outcome is that Earth is something of a rugby ball or dome. That's because all the evidence is on the side of the spherical Earth, and that's the same of the MMR 'debate'; there's no evidence to support it, so why in God's name are people jumping to the wild conclusion.

There seems to be two main undercurrents that I can detect; distrust of the big, evil pharmaceutical companies, and the classic cliche 'Think of the Children!!!' (parents not wanting to do anything that endangers children in other words). To start with the latter, measles, mumps and rubella are more dangerous and damaging than autism. Granted, autism is less well understood, but then does that make it the worst disease? We have more treatments for cancer than for colds, but which one would you rather have? Unless parents are saying they're unwilling to care for an autistic child because it will be too much work, in which case your concerns are null and void as, and the reactionary idiots must surely agree, being a parent is not conditional. I don't mind so much if people still aren't willing to risk the MMR 'for their children's safety', if they are consistent with this view. So that means no taking them in cars (road accidents), aeroplanes (crashes and very high doses of radiation possibly leading to cancer), mobile phones (tenuous link to tumours), alcohol (they can't have it, not the children, clumsy parenting is dangerous), broccoli (high in carcinogens), pencils (could jam it in their eyes), Lego (swallow it and choke) and anything else which has even the slightest chance of causing illness or damage.

The other problem is distrust at the big pharma companies. Granted, they're not looking out for people's interests, they're after money. And they do have a habit of inventing illnesses they can then treat with new meds. But I think there's a world of difference between being treated for a fictional disease and not being treated for a real one. If the big companies are just pushing MMR jabs on people as a money making exercise, why does it work? People seem to think it's just a money-making ruse, but why? Car companies are big and profit hungry, but nobody accuses them of surreptitiously making axles out of plywood or using whoopee cushions as air bags. it would be a lot cheaper for them and they'd make a lot of profit, so why don't they? I got a C for my business G.C.S.E., so I may be wrong, but I bet one of the golden rules of any business is DON'T KILL CUSTOMERS! And MMR is so much more expensive than giving children three separate courses of vaccination, isn't it?

If the MMR was given to a child who then developed measles, we'd never hear the last of it. Similarly, if a child was given MMR and then developed some obvious horrific side-effects, there would be no end of mob rallying. So any parent who refuses to have their child vaccinated 'for their safety' is an idiot. I don't have children myself, but I hope to one day, and damn right they'll be vaccinated, with MMR. For similar reasons, if my child's clothes caught fire I'd pour water on them, I wouldn't let them burn because there's a slim chance they could drown.

Rant over, back to work.

Art V Science: Personification

No Article, but here's the upcoming gig I keep referring too

Greetings, seasons wishes and merry new year and all that. First December entry, so I thought I'd get into the spirit of things. And why not start with a bit of self-indulgence and talk about my recent talk? Why not indeed.

I recently did the monthly Science Cafe, which was three days ago as I write this. It's a monthly forum for the open discussion of Science ideas and thinking, or just something novel about the field of science that someone wants to talk about. It's all good, and takes place in the lovely cafe-bar at the Gate, not too far from where I live. So far, so good.

I've never done this before, but am currently promoting an upcoming gig (see link above) which is billed as a science-themed comedy night. Now, I am totally aware that this may be a stupid idea. It may all go horribly wrong, it may be the most confusing gig ever, but I don't think it will be. My hypothesis is that it will be great and a novel experience. But I don't know, this gig is in every way experimental, which is somewhat appropriate.

But if I feel this way, and I'm the one who organised it, surely others will have stronger doubts? Curiosity alone may not be enough to get an audience, which is integral to any gig. So, what we need is strong evidence to support the claim that Science can be funny. Unfortunately, I can't provide that. All I can show are my own efforts at this (see what I did there? Self depreciation? It's all the rage). And that's what I was doing at Science cafe. The concept of science being a valid source of comedy most people consider inter sting in it's own right, but I was to put together a semi-talk, semi-routine to both provide a sneak preview of the gig and a talking point for the assembled masses.

It was a good night. The highlight of which was an almost literal personification of the ongoing clash between art and science. Here's my report of the evening, which may differ wildly if you ask anyone else. That's the problem with subjectivity, it's subjective.

Evening began with the first speaker, Science journalist Dr. Toby Murcott, discussing his talk about 'Why Scientists are always wrong, and why it's a good thing'. The main point he makes is that scientific reports can't offer what the media demands as a straightforward yes or no. When a scientist makes the claim that they definitely know something, then they will invariably be proven wrong with further research. Fair point, but I sort of disagree with the 'scientists are always wrong' claim on similar grounds as that in itself is a definite conclusion. Several examples he used could easily be picked apart, and the people I was with didn't really buy what he was saying, finding their own opinions reaffirmed rather than challenged. But that can happen in any debate, so no worries.

My turn then. Went very well, started talking about my background, school, education, tendencies, and my experience at dealing with the general public, always throwing in as many punchlines or humorous anecdotes as I could, most of which worked very well. This was reassuring, as it's always a risk when you try and do comedy in front of people who aren't out for comedy. It can help or hinder. If it's a music night or something like that, it can be annoying as people think you're just getting in the way. Whereas when it's more a whatever you'd define what I was doing as, people aren't expecting to be made to laugh, so it can be more effective.

Did my talk thing, got laughs, people liked, I got given a card, jobs a goodun. Break, then Q and A with me and the first guy. Most questions are aimed at the first speaker, as he made an actual claim that could be questioned/challenged, whereas my talk seemed to result in a more sort of 'fair enough' response. I said science can be funny, effectively demonstrated it, no worries.

During the Q and A, someone mentioned that school seem to favour arts over sciences when teaching. Toby came up with some reasoning, can't remember it now. At this point, our roles seemed to be that of someone asks him a question, he gives a very long answer, I jump in at the end with a humorous observation, move on. I simplified his argument, in what I thought was a clearly jokey manner, by pointing out that schools need high pass levels, and arts are easier, turning to the rest of the room and declaring "We've all thought it, don't deny it!". Much laughter. Followed by shriek of disapproval.

Intense looking middle-aged woman at the back takes exception to my ribbing. She did an arts degree. There followed some back and forth which seemed to kick off a room-wide debate. I will know highlight the main point made and my thoughts therein, and where they deviate from what I said if this occurred.

Arts woman:
"I have an arts degree" (I can't disprove that either way, lets take it as true).

"Arts subjects are just as hard as science!" (I had made no claim to the contrary, it was clearly a joke I thought, but her statement was overconfident, as she has no basis of comparison to test her claims, at best it seems to be based largely on the fact that she found her arts subject difficult but assumed she's equally/more intelligent than most people)

"Anyone could do science if you (an aggressive 'you', meaning all scientists present) just demystified it!" (A bizarre claim. Science, with it's rigid structure, logic, cause and effect mentality and absolute adherence to the laws of nature, where every claim has to be rigorously tested with approved methods and be sanctioned by a group of well informed experts and every published piece has to be explained meticulously, that's mysterious. Whereas arts, a largely subjective medium based on a shared belief system, personal opinion and with no measurable qualities, that's perfectly normal. In fairness, someone nearby immediately replied 'you could say that about arts'. Arts lady attempted to be more precise)

"But you can do arts, and you can't do science. (looks at me) I could get up and do stand-up (she really couldn't, but I was very tempted to let her try) but I couldn't just go and be a neuroscientist if I wanted! (no, she couldn't. This seemed to mean that you have to be a scientist to do science, whereas anyone can be an artist, a claim which normally enrages artists as it cheapens their profession/talent/livelihood etc. She appears to resent the fact that us scientists keep it away from the public. This is clearly just a malicious attempt on our part to keep 'normal' people in awe of us. Rather than, say, some rational attempt to stop the system collapsing entirely. Would you fly on a plain where the pilot was someone who just fancied having a go? I doubt it. Everyone is allowed to do science, as long as they know how things work, and that takes a bit of learning. What do you get if you do 'science' without knowing how things work? Homeopathy, bogus medication and Gillian McKeith, that's what you get).

Me in response
"I don't believe that scientists are any more intelligent than artists overall" (This is true, it's a ridiculous thing to say, like all women are bad drivers, such a sweeping statement can never be true. Plus I've met some incredibly stupid people who are qualified scientists. A scientist invented homeopathy, don't forget)

"I would never claim to be more intelligent than someone just because I'm a scientist" (I wouldn't it's true) Art's lady: You're not more intelligent than me (All evidence to the contrary thus far). Me: That's what I said (in a way). Arts lady: ....

"Science is seen as complex and difficult, so anyone who does it is believed to be more intelligent, but it's just another form of intelligence. You could have someone who's just as good at music as I am at Neuroscience, that would make us equally "intelligent" (I didn't mention the quote marks while talking out loud, but you get the idea) But you ask most people they'll say I'm the smarter one. I have no clue whatsoever as to how music works, but because it's more common, to more people it's not as impressive, that's the only reason scientists are seen as they are. If people can get over this misconception then we'll all be happier." (I believe all this)

This went on for some time, I managed to maintain the moral high-ground by not getting into a slanging match. It was obvious that most people in the room were not on her side, and I was coming across as the more rational, thoughtful, considerate person. it was Obama V McCain all over again (this is what I was told afterwards, not an arrogant self-appraisal)

The sad thing is I believe what I said. She'd turned up to an event called science cafe clearly expecting a dispute and to score some points off the arrogant boffins who think they're so smart, and she was going to get her argument even if no-one was willing to give it. So what we got was the scientist on one side, making calm statements, taking opinions on board and thinking rationally about the claims being made, and the artist on the other side, shouting passionately about their own opinions which made no sense and no-one agreed with but fuelled largely by self belief. Ironic how the person defending the artists was probably the worst possible ambassador. But not to worry, she'll be fine, she clearly was the sort of person who's convinced they've won a non existent argument in spite of all evidence.

But it was a fun night overall. I hope she comes to the gig this Sunday, it'll be a rude awakening. I was being polite and restrained because of where we were. Some of my fellow comics aren't so generous, if she wants to shout her mouth off again she might as well paint a target on her face. So, if anyone's free, anyone fancy walking round an art gallery shouting 'This Is Bollocks'! as loud as possible? See if they show similar restraint?